SPECIAL FEATURES:
7 eco-myths debunked: Spreads like wildfire
Fact or fiction? 7 eco-myths debunked
photo 1 of 9
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
LittleBreeder
Apr 23 2012 at 7:27 PM
Forget all patches to save the world, just supply potential breeders with condoms and pay_encourage_bribe them to use them and stop polluting the earth with the human plague.
Maurice
Apr 18 2012 at 12:00 PM
I am not buying into any of your myth debunking.you are espousing the view that there are exceptions to every rule and you are correct but I must state that most of these statements such as buy local food are 99% bang on.
Jack
Feb 26 2012 at 1:34 AM
When the comments section Debunked one of my myths: Environmentalist are open to new ideas
Will
Feb 10 2012 at 1:53 PM
Dear Website, Put the articles ON TOP of the comments, it's much better to read the article first, to understand what the people are commenting about.
Sincerely:
A frustrated reader.
Tarrant
Feb 10 2012 at 2:14 PM
Can you tell me what browser you use and version? (For example: Internet Explorer 8, Firefox 9) Comments appear under the article for me. Thanks for your assistance in letting us know about this bug.
Sarah Hicks
Jan 26 2012 at 12:14 PM
Thanks for letting us know. I've replaced the image with another that represents mythology. MNN editor
Konrad
Jan 23 2012 at 12:55 PM
You have missed the biggest BS about rainforests.
When a tree grows in the Amazon, it sequesters carbon.
When it gets old and dies, it decays and the carbon returns to the atmosphere. Thus in a pristine state the Amazon has no net effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is NOT the big CO2 sink that the popular myth claims. Yes, we could cut down the tree and turn it into high-end furniture, which will be protected from rot for a long time. But the only really effective carbon-sequestration
.... More
scheme is the process(es) that create limestone.
true green
Mar 15 2010 at 3:08 PM
Please read through the thinly veiled corporate tag lines strewn throughout this piece of horribly shoddy journalism. Wow, 'Mother Nature News'? Some neocon must have snatched it up and run with it.
MNN Moderator
Mar 15 2010 at 3:28 PM
While we've listed our advertisers on our website (as many sites do), our editorial product is completely independent and robust and isn't tied to any corporate interests. While we're grateful to have advertising dollars in these times, our top mission is to inspire and educate folks in the environmental space.
chad
Dec 24 2009 at 9:23 AM
Personally the only one I really thought was "out there" was the rain forest piece. The rest seemed very objective and made good sense.
It's perfectly legitimate to say that for the cost and waste of putting a NEW car on the road (even if it is a hybrid), you could save an OLD car from going in the dump and do the earth more good. Everyone holds the Prius to be the "gold standard" of environmentalism, but a Hummer converted to run on waste vegetable oil is several times more ecologically friendly.......
.... More
food for thought.
I also wouldn't have thought there would have been an article this interesting (and non-"the rest of you meat eaters are sucking the life out of our planet") on the mother nature network. lol
paulo
Dec 23 2009 at 10:03 PM
Did I read the same article? I thought it was an interesting way to warn about making any idea into dogma without research. Just good common sense as far as I can see.
nancifly
Dec 23 2009 at 7:48 PM
Enter your comments her I have been sitting here for ten minutes trying to express how hideously degrading to earth and life and human intelligence this report is, but i don't know how to say it well enough...a prime attempt at corporate industrial mind control using skillfully contrived language to present assumptions as facts...without providing any facts at all, BUT it did debunk me from this site forever! adios!
Bo
Jan 06 2010 at 8:25 AM
big corporations had the ideas back then .......big oil stopped it so they could make a profit ..... stop using.... to long we depended on big oil .....money, greed, power,..........the poor have to pay for change ...... we do this in taxes.....wake up.....we have been taken long enough... vote for change .....we have bailed out the big boys long enough....
Edgar Buroughs
Dec 23 2009 at 7:24 PM
To all you commentors: Where's your proof? Why do we live in a global culture that insists on blindly following whatever pretty sounding enviro-dogma comes along? Makes as much sense as using the excuse "It's for the children" every time you want to push un-popular legislation.
Meanderthal
Dec 23 2009 at 7:19 PM
OK, here are the high points:
There are no "myths" here, only easily-destroyed strawmen.
There is no debunking here, only vague descriptions of conditions under which the author's strawmen may not be true.
Theorizing that the Amazon rain forest was man-made ranks up there with the theory that the Merovingian bloodline is descended from Christ and that aliens made the Nazca lines. Explains bugger-all about rain forests in the rest of the world as well.
In short, the article is utterly pointless where
.... More
it is not deceptive, and I am worse off for its existence.
Pikadon
Dec 23 2009 at 7:10 PM
inanities writes: "A theory =/= fact, in case you didn't know."
You clearly don't understand that the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific context is different from what the word means in a conversational context.
In science, a theory is the currently accepted model or explanation for a phenomenon (e.g., the theory of relativity), not merely one idea competing with others.
inanities
Dec 23 2009 at 8:04 PM
Wow you sure got me.
Ancient civilizations planting the Amazon forest is not the 'currently accepted model or explanation for [the]. . . phenomenon'. The words 'rogue archaeologists' and 'posited the idea' are used in the article. This clearly is not the leading theory of how the Amazon was formed.
oshana
Dec 23 2009 at 7:07 PM
Hog wash, bull pucky, crapola, garbage, stinking propaganda against our intelligence!
D.Lee
Dec 23 2009 at 6:47 PM
Give me a break! This is such a cheesy front for polluting industries, its not even a mystery. There is no argument here... just muddying the waters.
Lisa
Dec 23 2009 at 6:14 PM
I've read stupid before, but it's never been packaged so well into an annoying slideshow.
Anonymous Coward
Dec 23 2009 at 6:11 PM
But srsly, wtf?
1. Local food may not always be better, but the example used only holds true if the method of transportation doesn't produce significant pollution, and you have to look at the entire chain from production to placement on store shelves - and the average person can't do that for every item.
2. "Not always" "occasionally" "some workers prefer" You don't fill your statement with qualifiers like these when you have a strong argument. There are always exceptions to the norm, and
.... More
using the exceptions as examples doesn't mean the usual viewpoint is incorrect.
3. Focusing solely on mercury ignores all the other pollutants released into the air from generating energy, and not all of our energy comes from coal. This one isn't even debunking anything, since the average person thinks "energy efficient = good" and you're saying CFLs are better (though it sounds the opposite until the last sentence).
4. Just because there are some benefits from the invasive species doesn't mean that there is a net benefit. Another where you're not really debunking anything, just noting that there are exceptions.
5. A few people advocating a theory doesn't mean it's true. Sure it's POSSIBLE that ancient civilizations are responsible for South American rainforests (though this doesn't account for geological evidence of Saharan rainforests and other similar areas), but it's also possible aliens built or helped build the Pyramids. There are people advocating that theory too. You also don't account for the fact that if their theory is true, we'd have to spend hundreds of years planting the forests and then wait several thousand years for it to become a rainforest.
6. More "not always." Like it or not, many of these "monoculture forests" are tree farms designed to provide a renewable source of lumber, or reforested areas that were previously clearcut.
7. "May make sense" - yes it might make sense to buy a somewhat used car instead, but this is yet another one where you're not debunking a myth. Myths are things that are commonly believed, yet false, whereas all your "myths" are things commonly believed that have exceptions.
This piece is misleading at best, doesn't debunk myths (since it doesn't actually contain any myths, read #7 response), and is no better than Fox News pieces saying "we have lots of snow this year so global warming is fake!" Inanities picked your worst one, but the stupid in this piece was so strong it needed a point-by-point response.
inanities
Dec 23 2009 at 5:09 PM
Wow, you didn't debunk a single myth.
The rain forest one was the worst. A theory =/= fact, in case you didn't know. That aside, what about the world's other rain forests, like the Tongass? Did the Tlingit and Haida tribes go to all 1,100 islands in the Alexander Archipelago and plant it? Do you even know what I'm talking about?
Spreads like wildfire
Mythology can be a powerful thing. Humans have been telling stories since the cave days, and as technology has advanced so has our ability to share our tales. In today's world, we're faced with a glut of information. Stories and narratives help us piece it all together. Sometimes the stories we share are factual, and sometimes they are outright wrong; more often, they fall somewhere in between. Here's the truth about seven green myths. (Text: Shea Gunther)
Advertisement
Advertisement
From our sponsor
Email
Join the conversation